Discussion of that CN Tower Picture

So... Who backed out on Oct. 26th... Tom or bubbles?

Bubbles did.

Sorry, but as long as you avoid debating the sinking effect itself, your arguments are hollow. It cannot be used as a disproof if it is questionable.

If you had bothered to look at the FE literature you would have noticed that there are many accounts which demonstrate that the Sinking Ship effect is an effect only, and not an object moving behind a convex sea.

As a ship recedes into the ocean's horizon, distant from the observer, it will appear to the naked eye to sink from the bottom up into the sea after it touches the horizon line. It has been found that this effect is purely perceptual, that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. While the exact mechanics of the effect may still be under debate, the fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex sea.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship:











How does your model of the earth explain these explicitly detailed accounts?

Quote

So... Who backed out on Oct. 26th... Tom or bubbles?

Bubbles did.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 07, 2007, 04:34:46 AM

Sorry, but as long as you avoid debating the sinking effect itself, your arguments are hollow. It cannot be used as a disproof if it is questionable.

If you had bothered to look at the FE literature you would have noticed that there are many accounts which demonstrate that the Sinking Ship effect is an effect only, and not an object moving behind a convex sea.

As a ship recedes into the ocean's horizon, distant from the observer, it will appear to the naked eye to sink from the bottom up into the sea after it touches the horizon line. It has been found that this effect is purely perceptual, that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. While the exact mechanics of the effect may still be under debate, the fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex sea.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship:











How does your model of the earth explain these explicitly detailed accounts?

I've been down the beach with decent pair of binoculars and the sinking ship effect was not restored by using them. I'm not really talking about ships here, I'm talking about the needles just off the edge of the Isle of Wight. This is what I said in another thread:  "I live on the south coast of England, I can see a certain amount of the Isle of White from my local beach.  I had to go into town today, so I thought, 'why not take a pair of binoculars and test this thing out.'  Basically my town is up on a reasonably high cliffe, so you can see out quite far.  The edge of the Isle of White is about 7.5 miles away.  Anyway, there are 3 very large rocks rising out of the sea next to the edge of the island, they are probably about a 3rd of the hight of the peak of the island (from where I was standing anyway), and a similar hight to the light house near by, i forget whether the light house was a little taller or a littler shorter though.  Anyway, with or without the use of binoculars you can plainly see a large amount of the bottom of these 3 rocks are very dark (maybe some kind of algae...or just generally discoloured), while the upper part of the rocks (probably about 4/5ths of what i could see of the rocks) is almost white. Anyway, the point is, that i walked down the cliffe, and stood on the sand in front of the sea.  I looked through the binoculars again and I could no longer see the darkly coloured section on the lower part of the rocks.  On my way back up the cliffe I looked again and the rocks had 'risen up' again.  So that's my observation test."     
 
 

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship:

rowbotham or uses of his "method" are not admissable as evidence.  do you seriously believe anyone actually reads those images?  all you are doing is wasting bandwidth.  stop it.

sorry I'm not talking about all the text you posted up Thomas Winship...just about my experinece with looking out to sea with binoculars

ever heard of mirages?

so a VERY rare phenomenon-"exceptional conditions of the atmosphere"-caused ships beyond the horizon to become visible. and you claim that's NORMAL-that EVERYONE should see that sort of thing EVERY DAY, despite the FACT that they do NOT?!

ever heard of WAVES?! certainly a ship could bob up and down enough for it's lower part to be momentarily visible from farther away than NORMAL!

i find the FACT that NOT ONE PERSON IN THE LAST CENTURY has seen anything like this to be MUCH more convincing than your BABBLING!

look up "UFO" and you will get better explanations of this sort of RARE occurence.

This is folly.

I've been down the beach with decent pair of binoculars and the sinking ship effect was not restored by using them. I'm not really talking about ships here, I'm talking about the needles just off the edge of the Isle of Wight. This is what I said in another thread:  "I live on the south coast of England, I can see a certain amount of the Isle of White from my local beach.  I had to go into town today, so I thought, 'why not take a pair of binoculars and test this thing out.'  Basically my town is up on a reasonably high cliffe, so you can see out quite far.  The edge of the Isle of White is about 7.5 miles away.  Anyway, there are 3 very large rocks rising out of the sea next to the edge of the island, they are probably about a 3rd of the hight of the peak of the island (from where I was standing anyway), and a similar hight to the light house near by, i forget whether the light house was a little taller or a littler shorter though.  Anyway, with or without the use of binoculars you can plainly see a large amount of the bottom of these 3 rocks are very dark (maybe some kind of algae...or just generally discoloured), while the upper part of the rocks (probably about 4/5ths of what i could see of the rocks) is almost white. Anyway, the point is, that i walked down the cliffe, and stood on the sand in front of the sea.  I looked through the binoculars again and I could no longer see the darkly coloured section on the lower part of the rocks.  On my way back up the cliffe I looked again and the rocks had 'risen up' again.  So that's my observation test."

That just means your pair of binoculars didn't provide enough optical magnification to counteract the effect. Nothing more.

Now, how do you explain the accounts in the Flat Earth Literature?
 

I've been down the beach with decent pair of binoculars and the sinking ship effect was not restored by using them. I'm not really talking about ships here, I'm talking about the needles just off the edge of the Isle of Wight. This is what I said in another thread:  "I live on the south coast of England, I can see a certain amount of the Isle of White from my local beach.  I had to go into town today, so I thought, 'why not take a pair of binoculars and test this thing out.'  Basically my town is up on a reasonably high cliffe, so you can see out quite far.  The edge of the Isle of White is about 7.5 miles away.  Anyway, there are 3 very large rocks rising out of the sea next to the edge of the island, they are probably about a 3rd of the hight of the peak of the island (from where I was standing anyway), and a similar hight to the light house near by, i forget whether the light house was a little taller or a littler shorter though.  Anyway, with or without the use of binoculars you can plainly see a large amount of the bottom of these 3 rocks are very dark (maybe some kind of algae...or just generally discoloured), while the upper part of the rocks (probably about 4/5ths of what i could see of the rocks) is almost white. Anyway, the point is, that i walked down the cliffe, and stood on the sand in front of the sea.  I looked through the binoculars again and I could no longer see the darkly coloured section on the lower part of the rocks.  On my way back up the cliffe I looked again and the rocks had 'risen up' again.  So that's my observation test."

yup.  same thing can be done just north of one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world (golden gate bridge in san francisco).  you can see the farallon islands from up high, just west of hawk hill.  as your travel west, down towards sea level, it gradually starts disappearing beyond the horizon.  you can look at it through multiple levels of zoom (i have, including a 10x zoom snappy cam, a large slr zoom lens, and gyro-stabilized military-grade binoculars), and it is not magically "restored" by a poorly explained, impossible trick of "perspective".  or restored period.  if you stop at multiple points down to the beach, you can with low, medium, and high zoom that it does indeed stay at the same level beyond the horizon.  until it's just a nub above the horizon.  and at sea level, it is gone completely.  a 300 foot island, completely obscured by the curvature of the earth.

bishop would rather keep posting 200 year old bullshit that was bullshit even in it's own time, and make up stories about children splashing in 50 degree water, rather than go outside and do things like the farallon experiment, and see the world for himself.  he is a documented liar that does not deserve our attention.

Now, how do you explain the accounts in the Flat Earth Literature?

As unverifiable, unrepeatable, inaccurate, pieces of writing.

Quote

I've been down the beach with decent pair of binoculars and the sinking ship effect was not restored by using them. I'm not really talking about ships here, I'm talking about the needles just off the edge of the Isle of Wight. This is what I said in another thread:  "I live on the south coast of England, I can see a certain amount of the Isle of White from my local beach.  I had to go into town today, so I thought, 'why not take a pair of binoculars and test this thing out.'  Basically my town is up on a reasonably high cliffe, so you can see out quite far.  The edge of the Isle of White is about 7.5 miles away.  Anyway, there are 3 very large rocks rising out of the sea next to the edge of the island, they are probably about a 3rd of the hight of the peak of the island (from where I was standing anyway), and a similar hight to the light house near by, i forget whether the light house was a little taller or a littler shorter though.  Anyway, with or without the use of binoculars you can plainly see a large amount of the bottom of these 3 rocks are very dark (maybe some kind of algae...or just generally discoloured), while the upper part of the rocks (probably about 4/5ths of what i could see of the rocks) is almost white. Anyway, the point is, that i walked down the cliffe, and stood on the sand in front of the sea.  I looked through the binoculars again and I could no longer see the darkly coloured section on the lower part of the rocks.  On my way back up the cliffe I looked again and the rocks had 'risen up' again.  So that's my observation test."

That just means your pair of binoculars didn't provide enough optical magnification to counteract the effect. Nothing more.

Now, how do you explain the accounts in the Flat Earth Literature?
 

Lol that's not true, you're hillarious

Now, how do you explain the accounts in the Flat Earth Literature?

rowbotham and his ilk they were deluded but well-debunked idiots trying to prove the literalness of the bible, and you are a documented liar who can do nothing but post image links to their rediculous "works", trying to look impressive while hoping no one actually reads them for the hilarious drivel they are.  what else needs to be said?

pfft, I'll read it later, I can't be arsed right now. But if it's as reliable as your source that stated that The British Ship Challenger took 3 years to circumnavigate the south polar region, conveniantly leaving the actual details of the journey after they set of from Portsmouth...

rowbotham and his ilk they were deluded but well-debunked idiots trying to prove the literalness of the bible, and you are a documented liar who can do nothing but post image links to their rediculous "works", trying to look impressive while hoping no one actually reads them for the hilarious drivel they are.  what else needs to be said?

The accounts in the literature are clearly contradictory to the Round Earth Theory. How can you prove that the researchers didn't see what they claimed to have seen? Why should we place our blind trust in some researchers, but neglect the work of other researchers who have seen evidence suggesting a different model of the earth? Just because you don't agree with it?

As unverifiable, unrepeatable, inaccurate, pieces of writing.

Since you cannot explain how the independent researchers in the FE literature were able to restore the sinking ship effect, since you are unable to maintain a coherent model of the earth which agrees with all observations, that means you lose.

pfft, I'll read it later, I can't be arsed right now. But if it's as reliable as your source that stated that The British Ship Challenger took 3 years to circumnavigate the south polar region, conveniantly leaving the actual details of the journey after they set of from Portsmouth...

post the link to that please, i'll verify and include it in my bishop lie compendium.

Quote

rowbotham and his ilk they were deluded but well-debunked idiots trying to prove the literalness of the bible, and you are a documented liar who can do nothing but post image links to their rediculous "works", trying to look impressive while hoping no one actually reads them for the hilarious drivel they are.  what else needs to be said?

The accounts in the literature are clearly contradictory to the Round Earth Theory.

i don't see the disagreement there.

How can you prove that the researchers didn't see what they claimed to have seen?

i don't need to.

Why should we place our blind trust in some researchers...

exactly.  so give up the pathetic rowbotham bullshit already.  it's beyond humorous and is now just really tedious.

Just because you don't agree with it?

no, because you believe it.

Quote

As unverifiable, unrepeatable, inaccurate, pieces of writing.

Since you cannot explain how the independent researchers in the FE literature were able to restore the sinking ship effect, since you are unable to maintain a coherent model of the earth which agrees with all observations, that means you lose.

man, bishop is getting really desperate.  like 12-year-old desperate.  and bringing out the "big guns" from his debate inventory (i guess).  i love it: "since you are unable to maintain a coherent model of earth which agrees with all observations".  i'm still shaking my head out of either pity on that one.  boy, you really got us on that one, bishop.  you mean, maintaining a coherent picture like fe?

How can you prove that the researchers didn't see what they claimed to have seen?

How can you prove that those people did see what they claimed to have seen?
I have recreated the relevant conditions and tested for the Sinking Effect finding it to be a fake observation.

Bump.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2007, 10:12:44 AM

How can you prove that the researchers didn't see what they claimed to have seen?

How can you prove that those people did see what they claimed to have seen?
I have recreated the relevant conditions and tested for the Sinking Effect finding it to be a fake observation.

i have as well, under controlled circumstances and various degrees and devices of magnification, including 20x60 stabilized binoculars and a large camera zoom lens.  the rowbotham description of the sinking ship effect is clearly, unambiguously bogus.

i have as well, under controlled circumstances and various degrees and devices of magnification, including 20x60 stabilized binoculars and a large camera zoom lens.  the rowbotham description of the sinking ship effect is clearly, unambiguously bogus.

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

Quote

i have as well, under controlled circumstances and various degrees and devices of magnification, including 20x60 stabilized binoculars and a large camera zoom lens.  the rowbotham description of the sinking ship effect is clearly, unambiguously bogus.

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

hmmm, let me think.  ...i might.  what do you propose i provide?

Quote

i have as well, under controlled circumstances and various degrees and devices of magnification, including 20x60 stabilized binoculars and a large camera zoom lens.  the rowbotham description of the sinking ship effect is clearly, unambiguously bogus.

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

bishop i'm waiting for your answer.  you asked me a direct question.  i'll give you the benefit of doubt that that was a sincere question (rather than bullsh*t), and that you would like a sincere answer.  in order to answer, it, i need to know what kind of evidence you would like to see to support my outlandish claims.  answer the question.

bishop i'm waiting for your answer.  you asked me a direct question.  i'll give you the benefit of doubt that that was a sincere question (rather than bullsh*t), and that you would like a sincere answer.  in order to answer, it, i need to know what kind of evidence you would like to see to support my outlandish claims.  answer the question.

Any sort of evidence would do. Not that you have any.

Quote

i have as well, under controlled circumstances and various degrees and devices of magnification, including 20x60 stabilized binoculars and a large camera zoom lens.  the rowbotham description of the sinking ship effect is clearly, unambiguously bogus.

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

Why shouldn't we believe his eyewitness accounts? You believe, and expect us to believe, rowboatmans eyewitness accounts which were published in the 1800's..

Also I'd have to imagine that even relatively cheap modern magnification devices surpass greatly the quality of the optics in the 1800's. Do we need to use antique telescopes to prove your claims?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2007, 10:00:18 PM

Quote

i have as well, under controlled circumstances and various degrees and devices of magnification, including 20x60 stabilized binoculars and a large camera zoom lens.  the rowbotham description of the sinking ship effect is clearly, unambiguously bogus.

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

Why should we believe his eyewitness accounts?

I believe the "shouldn't" should be be changed to "should".

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2007, 10:12:44 AM

How can you prove that the researchers didn't see what they claimed to have seen?

How can you prove that those people did see what they claimed to have seen?
I have recreated the relevant conditions and tested for the Sinking Effect finding it to be a fake observation.

Quote

bishop i'm waiting for your answer.  you asked me a direct question.  i'll give you the benefit of doubt that that was a sincere question (rather than bullsh*t), and that you would like a sincere answer.  in order to answer, it, i need to know what kind of evidence you would like to see to support my outlandish claims.  answer the question.

Any sort of evidence would do. Not that you have any.

and if i produce said evidence, what will *you* do?  i would expect one or more of the following:

1) an apology

2) concession upon reviewing such powerful evidence that rowbotham was a fraud and your dogmatic belief system is in shambles

3) and last but not least, in return for me taking the time and effort to provide my evidence, i will absolutely insist that you provide *your* evidence, preferrably in photographic form, of the beach in monterrey 33 miles away, as photographed through your (or a) telescope, from near ocean level.

i at least expect #3.  i'm even willing to provide my evidence on your word that you will get cracking on providing your evidence.

do you have the guts to do this?

I have recreated the relevant conditions and tested for the Sinking Effect finding it to be a fake observation.

Why should we believe you? My point was that we can't choose who's eyewitness accounts we believe. You took my words out of context, and essentially failed to counter my argument.

Quote

bishop i'm waiting for your answer.  you asked me a direct question.  i'll give you the benefit of doubt that that was a sincere question (rather than bullsh*t), and that you would like a sincere answer.  in order to answer, it, i need to know what kind of evidence you would like to see to support my outlandish claims.  answer the question.

Any sort of evidence would do. Not that you have any.

helloo bishop.  i know you read my previous challenge.  you've been here just a few minutes ago and have been posting.

i told you that i will present my evidence.  in return, i want you to present your photographic evidence of the "33 mile away beach" phenomenon.  i am even willing to give you a pass and just take your word (whatever that's worth) that you get out, take the pics, and present them.  at some future date.  doesn't get much easier than that.

you have challenged me directly.  i have accepted the challenge, with a perfectly reasonable condition based on your own defended personal observations.  this is a direct challenge, and your challenge to me is far more labor-intensive (obtain and present the evidence) than my challenge to you (just say you will present the evidence).

you can't get without giving.  it's time to stop running away.  i will not let go of this for as long as i am alive and you remain on this forum.  i am calling you on your own story.  time to pony up.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2007, 09:54:33 PM

Quote

bishop i'm waiting for your answer.  you asked me a direct question.  i'll give you the benefit of doubt that that was a sincere question (rather than bullsh*t), and that you would like a sincere answer.  in order to answer, it, i need to know what kind of evidence you would like to see to support my outlandish claims.  answer the question.

Any sort of evidence would do. Not that you have any.

helloo bishop.  i know you read my previous challenge.  you've been here just a few minutes ago and have been posting.

i told you that i will present my evidence.  in return, i want you to present your photographic evidence of the "33 mile away beach" phenomenon.  i am even willing to give you a pass and just take your word (whatever that's worth) that you get out, take the pics, and present them.  at some future date.  doesn't get much easier than that.

you have challenged me directly.  i have accepted the challenge, with a perfectly reasonable condition based on your own defended personal observations.  this is a direct challenge, and your challenge to me is far more labor-intensive (obtain and present the evidence) than my challenge to you (just say you will present the evidence).

you can't get without giving.  it's time to stop running away.  i will not let go of this for as long as i am alive and you remain on this forum.  i am calling you on your own story.  time to pony up.

Pwned! Good job cpt

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on December 13, 2007, 01:18:16 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2007, 09:54:33 PM

Quote

bishop i'm waiting for your answer.  you asked me a direct question.  i'll give you the benefit of doubt that that was a sincere question (rather than bullsh*t), and that you would like a sincere answer.  in order to answer, it, i need to know what kind of evidence you would like to see to support my outlandish claims.  answer the question.

Any sort of evidence would do. Not that you have any.

helloo bishop.  i know you read my previous challenge.  you've been here just a few minutes ago and have been posting.

i told you that i will present my evidence.  in return, i want you to present your photographic evidence of the "33 mile away beach" phenomenon.  i am even willing to give you a pass and just take your word (whatever that's worth) that you get out, take the pics, and present them.  at some future date.  doesn't get much easier than that.

you have challenged me directly.  i have accepted the challenge, with a perfectly reasonable condition based on your own defended personal observations.  this is a direct challenge, and your challenge to me is far more labor-intensive (obtain and present the evidence) than my challenge to you (just say you will present the evidence).

you can't get without giving.  it's time to stop running away.  i will not let go of this for as long as i am alive and you remain on this forum.  i am calling you on your own story.  time to pony up.

Pwned! Good job cpt

thank you, but i fully expect that it was in vain.  he won't respond.  i will, however, keep bringing this up, for as long as it takes.  i am prepared to present my evidence as soon as he commits to presenting his easy-to-obtain evidence to back up his vehement claims.

Quote

bishop i'm waiting for your answer.  you asked me a direct question.  i'll give you the benefit of doubt that that was a sincere question (rather than bullsh*t), and that you would like a sincere answer.  in order to answer, it, i need to know what kind of evidence you would like to see to support my outlandish claims.  answer the question.

Any sort of evidence would do. Not that you have any.

bump.

i told you that i will present my evidence for a round earth.  before i do, i want you to present your photographic evidence of the "33 mile away beach" phenomenon.  i am willing to give you a pass and just take your word (whatever that's worth) that you get out, take the pics, and present them.  at some future date.  doesn't get much easier than that.

we are waiting for your reply.  you have made a direct challenge that does not come for free.  just almost for free.[/quote]